Share this

As the Wisconsin standoff continues Ohio Gov. John Kasich (R) has signaled support for a law that would end collective bargaining rights for state workers and restrict those rights for teachers, police officers, firefighters and other local government employees. In Florida, Gov. Rick Scott (R) is demanding that public workers pay 5 percent of their salaries toward their pensions.

Are public employees being targeted in a bout of union busting? Will Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker’s refusal to budge embolden his fellow GOP governors in these moves?

Public employees are being asked to make significant sacrifices and their resentment is understandable. However, we need not conjure up union busting conspiracies when impending state budgetary disasters are a more than sufficient explanation.

In Wisconsin, the union busting charges are directed at the provision in Gov. Walker’s budget bill that would curtail collective bargaining for public unions. While the bill should be applauded for making union membership optional rather than mandatory for public employees, one can plausibly argue that those public employees who choose to join the union should have the same collective bargaining rights as private union members – at least in an ideal world. However, in the real world of self-interested politicians, collective bargaining by public employees tends to undermine what should be any government’s top priorities: fiscal responsibility and the interests of the general public.

While virtually everyone agrees that the contracts negotiated by public employee unions are, to some degree, unsustainably generous – the argument centers on what to do about it – that doesn’t mean that public employees are to blame for the resulting budgetary disasters. They have been doing what most employees do – trying to maximizing their pay and benefits without much regardless for its impact on the fiscal health of their employer.

Instead, the fault lies with the state and local politicians who inevitably pay more attention to the demands of public employees than to the interests of the general public. Why? Because public employees are better organized, have more immediate leverage – they don’t have to wait for the next election to threaten strikes or slowdowns – and, through their unions, account for the largest share of campaign contributions. I wish politicians had risen above their narrow interests to make fiscal responsibility and the interests of the general public paramount. But in the real world, collective bargaining by public unions made that a fantasy, as the current budgetary disasters demonstrate.

It may be both unfair and unnecessary to completely eliminate collective bargaining for public employees. But Gov. Walker’s bill contains what appears to be a reasonable and underreported compromise – scaling back collective bargaining while retaining the basic right to bargain over wages.

The standoff in Wisconsin is not about a budget crisis. If it were, Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker would not have pushed through tax cuts worth $117 million and he would be willing to negotiate in good faith with the public employee unions, who have said they are prepared to discuss cuts in both wages and benefits.

Instead, Gov. Walker wants some public employee union members to give up their collective bargaining rights – in other words, to bust the unions. That sentiment may spread among other Republican governors, such as Ohio Gov. John Kasich, but it will be met with heavy resistance. Shared sacrifice is one thing – but using a budget battle as an excuse to bust unions in not acceptable and Democrats will rightly continue to fight any proposals to do that.

The battle is unnecessary. Americans want both parties to work together to address the serious challenges facing our nation, from the need for increased job growth to a serious effort to address our massive deficits. Busting public employee unions is not the way to do that.

Jeffrey C. StewartProfessor of Black Studies at University of California at Santa Barbara :

Even before Walker decided to take away union bargaining rights from most public sector workers in Wisconsin, we were witnessing the return of 1968, when working people, the unemployed, students, and youth around the world rebelled against the oligarchy and bankrupt politics of the post-World War II generation.

But now that Walker is attacking one of the key pillars of modern economic democracy -- the right of public service workers to collective bargaining -- Walker has done something that Barack Obama hasn't been able to do since his election: Wake up the masses of working-class and lower middle-class employees to a spirited American-style activism that resonates well visually with what we saw in Egypt and now in the rest of North Africa -- the right of the people to have a say in their economic and political future.

There is a spirit of rebellion against neoliberal policies -- which the U.S. historically exported to Third World countries in exchange for bailouts -- policies that the average American has never had to experienc: the pain of homelessness, hunger and dead-end jobs that lead nowhere. These economic policies of the West have kept dictators in place in countries around the world, whose only responsibility was to keep the oil flowing and rake in personal fortunes. Alas, they are not so different from the kinds of kings and queens of Wall Street -- robber barons who raked in the money and bankrupted the American and the world economies in 2008. Unlike '68, this drama is unfolding in a recession, as high rates of unemployment in Egypt, Tunisia and Libya combined with high costs of goods have driven people into full-scale desperation.

And that is what is coming to America, to states like Wisconsin, California and others, where the collapse of the mortgage-housing-banking complex has forced a decision: Do we raise taxes and take care of the people whose lives have been destroyed by the bankers, mortgage brokers, commodity traders, Wall Street types who have gutted the American housing industry and its tax revenue stream, or do we cut taxes, cut payrolls, cut the voices of unions out of collective bargaining?

Walker has delivered his answer, but his answer has had an unexpected effect: it has energized a liberal base that has been quiet since Obama's election, a base that suddenly and remarkably is fired up, angry, and in the streets and courthouses. The real question is: was Walker's nakedly aggressive anti-union move prudent for 2012 politics? For whatever happens in Wisconsin on this particular issue, the liberal base has awakened and is gearing up for the showdown that is coming in 2012, an election that will be as important to the future direction of America as the one in 1968.

Patrick DorinsonCommentator, host of the radio talk show “The Cowboy Libertarian” :

Union busting my foot!

The governor and the majority Republicans are standing up for the taxpayers who elected them by a wide margin.

Gee, didn’t President Obama once famously and arrogantly tell Republicans in January 2009 when challenged about his fiscal plans “I won”? Scott Walker also won running on the same things he is trying to do now.

This is a bunch of aging baby boomer retirees trying to recapture their youth and is reliving the halcyon days of the Vietnam War protests. They think if the holler loud enough and long enough and throw a tantrum they will get their way - just like they did back then.

Not this time. Not even with the Community Organizer-in-Chief on their side who by the way should stick to his own budget problems. He certainly is not one to give lectures on fiscal prudence.

Here in California there is no reason to worry about unions taking over the California state capitol in Sacramento.

They did that over 30 years ago during Jerry Brown’s first tenure as governor when he granted state workers collective bargaining rights.

In fact the California state legislature is a wholly owned subsidiary of SEIU, the California Teachers Association and the California Nurses Association as well as other unions.

The sweet irony is that now Jerry must deal with an unfunded pension and retiree health care crisis that is his own making. And he will need their support if he wants to extend expiring tax increases this June so he needs to be careful not to antagonize them. They hold the trump cards.

In 1911 California Hiram Johnson took the oath of office as California’s governor. He vowed to break the unfettered power of the Southern Pacific Railroad who had a stranglehold on the legislature.

Now 100 years later we have traded that for the unfettered power of the public employees unions who have a similar stranglehold on the legislature.

I guess that’s progress albeit in the wrong direction.

Too bad we couldn’t find another Hiram Johnson but luckily for Wisconsin they did.

To the Democrats and their union paymasters in Wisconsin who say they will never let Gov. Walker’s plan pass here is a little cowboy advice.

The dialogue to date has focused on the “rights” of union. What about the rights of thousands of teachers and other state employees who do not want to be represented by a union and who do not want to pay exorbitant union dues? There’s nothing fair, transparent or democratic about forced unionism. The fact is that the unions are fighting to protect themselves, not their membership. The Wisconsin Education Association Council quickly folded on the issue of their members paying more for their health care and pensions. That certainly calls into question what the WEAC is really protecting - their members or their source of income.

Make no mistake about it, forced dues are serious money for the teachers unions. The two national teachers unions – the National Education Association and the American Federation of Teachers – collect more than $2 billion a year in dues. In 2007, $1.3 billion came from forced unionism states like Wisconsin and Ohio. You don’t have to scratch the surface very deep to see the real meaning of their fight.

Wisconsin is a reflection of the real mood of the general public. The working people (union and non-union) are tired of being "thrown under the bus" to satisfy poorly managed state budgets, federal government short comings, and to sustain corporate profits. The other states who can not manage their budgets should take notice that this movement will be coming to a state house near you.

New Jersey's governor showed the world that you can too tackle the teachers unions and not be tarred as anti-teacher or anti-education.

All states face the same problem. Labor union bosses have used their political muscle to extort great gobs of taxpayer money - yesterday, today and in the future. Government workers are paid more, have more holidays, more sick leave, better pensions and benefits and ridiculous job security that is obviously better than the contract Mubarak had.

There is no fixing the symptoms. Voters will support those governors that tackle the root causes of high taxes and slow growth...public sector unionism and unresponsive civil servants.

Wisconsin is following Chris Christie - and Wisconsin and Ohio have Republican legislatures to help.

Scott SalesMontana State Director of Americans For Prosperity; Former State House Speaker :

It has now become obvious, to even the casual observer, that the federal government is broke and our state’s finances, in many cases, are even worse off. This is highlighted by the fact that 49 of the states must balance their budget and many if not all are dependent on federal dollars to make that happen.

These newly elected governors are making the financially prudent decision to tackle runaway state employee pay and benefits head-on. They have no choice, the greed of the state employee and teachers unions have placed the states in a fiscally unsustainable position. The private sector has seen their retirement accounts shrink and are now paying an ever increase share of their health care benefits. It is only fair that government employees contribute in the shared sacrifice that will be necessary to fix the problem.

Last November, the GOP was not the victor; it was the beneficiary of voter anger. Voters went to the ballot box and said we need bold changes in government because our tax-and-spend ways cannot continue. Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker is one of the few newly elected Republicans to answer this call from the electorate.

Unfortunately voters on both sides of the aisle scream for bold change, and then they don't want to find their favorite programs on the chopping block. But let's be honest. In these tough economic times, everyone is called on to sacrifice, including public sector unions. For too long, public sector unions have been playing the sympathy card, and now it is time for state governments to invoke the fiscal responsibility card. Hopefully, other newly minted governors like Rick Scott in Florida, John Kasich in Ohio and Rick Snyder in Michigan will stand up with Walker.

It IS fiscal prudence to bust state employee unions. The American people have realized that the most destructive dynamic in our country today is the greed of the Government Class and the willingness of the Government Class to enrich itself at the expense of bankrupting governments at all levels, and shackling future generations of American taxpayers with higher taxes and diminished living standards.

There is at least some logic in workers organizing against allegedly self-interested management of private corporations. But by what logic should government employees be able to organize and leverage their clout in their salary and benefit demands against - taxpayers?

The Government Class isn't going to win this one. Their demands are out-of-sync with the experiences of their neighbors who fund their outlandish benefits. They've already done more than enough damage to the economics of cities, towns and states across America. Their time is over.

The American people have had it with government workers who feel no particular pressure to be productive, are insulated from layoffs and firings, have better salary and benefit packages than the private sector, and retire with pension benefits many times larger than private sector equivalents. There is no inherent reason why passing the civil service exam should lead to a lifetime on the gravy train at the expense of the productive economy. This is what the November election was about.

It is my opinion that union busting is precisely what we are witnessing. As a West Virginia legislator I don't blame those workers for being outraged. Congress has not enacted one law that corrects abuses from either our out of control financial industry, corporations enjoying undue tax relief or the wealthiest 1% of Americans. Instead, states seem to be reacting to those deficit gaps by victimizing groups who did nothing to contribute the problems that have crippled the national economy and state economies.

I've no idea why Wisconsin elected this particular governor but believe buyers remorse has surely set in. It is a sad situation that I hope is not repeated in other states.

There is no doubt the governors are union-busting, but this is one of the few cases where it's for the greater good. Walker, Kasich and others have two very reasonable objectives: first, obtain pension and health insurance concessions from all public workers in the state because those costs really will bankrupt the government if not contained. The second - which is mostly what's causing all the ruckus - is to rebalance the lopsided bargaining relationship between local public unions and the city and county governments in those states.

Because of their monopoly power over essential public services and their outsized political influence over city councils, it is nearly impossible for mayors to control unions at their level, so the governors are trying to do it for them by generally limiting the items that can be negotiated in all government labor contracts in their states. Pension formulas, health care benefits and work rules are particularly troublesome for taxpayers because - unlike wages - it is impossible for voters to know their fiscal impact and thereby exert countervailing political pressure. Gov. Walker remembers his frustrating experience as Milwaukee County executive, which is why he wants to help his cities out now.

It is deeply unfortunate that a couple of governors are simultaneously trying to pass "right-to-work" legislation (which would apply to private sector workers as well) while all this is going on, because doing so taints the generally positive things that Walker and Kasich are trying to do for their taxpayers and local governments. Right-to-work laws deserve a completely separate debate, just as public and private unions have completely different moral cases. I do not believe that strong public sector unions make private sector unions stronger, not one whit, but by injecting right-to-work into the current political atmosphere, reformist governors are actually making the left's case that the Wisconsin battle is about unionism itself.

One subject that does not get much attention in these proposals: the Republican governors are exempting cops and firefighters and other law enforcement personnel from their fiscal and pension proposals. That's the state level equivalent of saying you're getting tough on the budget but won't touch Medicare.

Law enforcement pensions are at the core of the pension crisis, because law enforcement officers are relatively well paid and have been permitted to retire at very young ages in lots of places. To exempt these politically powerful groups from supposedly tough proposals makes these governors - to borrow a phrase from a certain former Republican governor - girlie men.

It is union-busting in the guise of fiscal prudence. This is no less than a full frontal assault on the public-employee unions that have become a bulwark of support for Democratic candidates, and has more to do with politics than budget deficits. Along with the Supreme Court's atrocious Citizens United ruling allowing unlimited corporate money in the political system, the attempt to shut down public employee unions also is part of the continuing effort to tilt the playing field structurally toward Republicans. Where it all ends, nobody knows.

This is classic shock doctrine: use the crisis brought on by the gambols of Wall Street and wealth as occasion to weaken worker rights and cut social benefits. Conservatives have declared open war on unions since Reagan. With public sector unions now representing a majority of unionized workers (and private sector unions reduced to less than 7 percent of the workforce), they are the target. The crisis provides the opportunity. This isn’t about budgets; it’s about power.

This is the tea party two-step: budget busting high end tax cuts followed by union busting public servants. Any pretense of fiscal prudence was defied by the Wisconsin Republicans; $117 tax cuts that precipitated this "crisis." Any pretense of shared sacrifice was defied by the governor's refusal to accept givebacks in collective bargaining negotiations.

All eyes are on Wisconsin to see how this tea party two step will play out; my bet is that the American people won't dance.

Ken FeltmanChairman Radnor Inc.; Past president of the International Association of Political Consultants :

Success breeds success. The unions have had the upper hand and do not want to relinquish their control and power. For years, public employee unions have capitalized on the willingness of elected officials to provide generous contracts while deferring the day of reckoning.

The governors know that if one of them buckles under pressure, the rest of them will face intensified pressure. They believe that the voters support them and are becoming disenchanted with teachers and other public employees who are demonstrating rather than performing their job duties.

This could end very badly for the unions. Despite the demonstrations, the unionized employees would not be harmed as much today as they could be in the long run if voter unhappiness leads to a backlash with a long memory.

Janine TurnerActress, Constitutional Educator and Host of The Janine Turner Radio Show :

"We mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor." Our founding fathers were willing to risk everything for freedom. They knew firsthand the horrors of dictatorship.

These words from our Declaration of Independence echo a resounding call to action for Americans today. In 1776 it was to free ourselves from the present tyranny. Today it is to free ourselves from impending tyranny. America, better yet, our republic, is poised for a foreign takeover without a shot being fired. What will be the demise of America - the failing economy.

We must unite, arm in arm, to take the selfless steps required, as American citizens, to preserve our country and the basic rights enumerated in our Constitution - for if we have no country, we have no rights.

Have we Americans forgotten what it is like to sacrifice? As a nation, have we lost the essence of our pilgrim, pioneer and patriot spirit?

If Govs. Walker, Scott and Kasich lose this battle then we, as a country, will lose the war - the war to preserve America.

The United States of America was not built by short sighted, leaders but by men with vision - a vision coupled with wisdom and bravery. Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, Florida Gov. Rick Scott and Ohio Gov. John Kasich are such leaders. We who value our freedom and we who wish for our posterity the same pursuits of life, liberty and happiness that we've enjoyed, need to support these governors, and all other elected officials, who are courageous enough to take road less traveled - a path that will lead us to a future that preserves our republic.

This anti-union campaign has different facets. In the case of Wisconsin it is pure union busting. Elsewhere it is part of a growing national effort to get public employee unions to share the pain to help states get out of their financial mess. The Wisconsin drama could well spur other governors to try the same thing but governors often harbor political ambitions beyond their states and they won't be willing to go the same route. The message to public employee unions around the country is that they have an obligation to pitch in and their givebacks could save the jobs of many of their fellow members.

The union movement has no choice but to wage a recall campaign against Scott Walker in January when Wisconsin law allows for his recall. The DNC should help. His actions have little to do with the finances of his state and everything to do with political payback.

If the union movement does nothing to return fire, you can be sure other right-wing governors will try this in their states. Wisconsin allows for recall and there's a great candidate for governor waiting in the wings: Russ Feingold. Scott's election was a fluke and he has already overreached. People fought and died for collective bargaining rights. To remove it in a budget bill with no debate shows no respect for working men and women.

It's time to man up and remove him. That and only that will make other governors think twice.

Collective bargaining is one of the bedrock principles governing employer-employee relations, and it came about precisely because individuals with power -- whether they be political or economic -- have sought to unilaterally impose their will on individual workers. Unionization and the right to collectively bargain is the only leverage available to workers and has been a target of big business and their conservative allies for decades. To singularly blame all state budget woes on unions is scapegoating, wrong-spirited and just plain wrong. To argue that public employee agreements need to be reworked in order for everyone to shoulder part of the burden of state budget shortfalls is appropriate, but only as part of an overall solution, not as an excuse to engage in union-busting.

The economic slump has created havoc with budgets in most states. The CEO’s (governors) of those nearly bankrupt states are having to do whatever they can to try and prevent the bankruptcies; a reaction that mirrors the decision process of CEOs in private businesses or public companies. Times are far from normal, not just for the individual states but for our country.

These “game-changer “ times require unusual actions. The loss of productive output during the oft drawn-out bargaining fights, while somewhat manageable in a normal economy, carry a greater sting today; witness Wisconsin where their government is almost paralyzed while they fight over this issue.

Why don’t the unions, whose workers make more in salary and or benefits than their statewide brothers, agree to a two year moratorium on collective bargaining while their state tries to recover? That is something that might be acceptable to the governors of other states that have collective bargaining rights. Should the governors not be interested in such a moratorium, maybe they are intent on trying to truly bust the unions. That is their individual decision.

AFSCME attacked Walker savagely for his record as a county executive. He fought the unions and won there. He ran on that experience. Now he is bringing that to Madison. No one should be surprised. And the media is doing a disservice by ignoring the fights he fought in the county.

You couldn’t ask for a more cynical play by the Republicans around the country, using an economic crisis they created through deregulation and corporate giveaways masquerading as “fair trade” (i.e., incentivizing corporations to move American jobs overseas or cut American wages and benefits) to pit worker against worker, the middle class against the middle class. They also know that the unions are the only counterweight — not just in the workplace but in funding for political campaigns — to big business.

If the Democrats have any sense, they’ll harness their inner populist and go after the Republicans and their corporate sponsors and push for double-digit tax-hikes for companies whose executives earn more than 30 times the salary of their average employee — making more in a day than their workers make in a month; executives with bonuses above six figures; and corporations that cut benefits, pensions, or wages of their average worker while increasing executive compensation. Those changes would give every state in the country a massive surplus and start restoring America to a country where people who create productivity share in the fruits of it.

The Wisconsin standoff is not about fiscal prudence. The Wisconsin Teachers Association Council has already agreed to accept all of Gov. Scott Walker's financial demands. Teachers and other public sector workers will pay more for their health care and their pension benefits.

The standoff is now about only one thing: the unions' right to bargain collectively.

Gov. Scott wants to break the union so it can no longer fight for education spending, smaller classes, programs and services needed for kids, and so that it cannot bargain to improve working conditions.

If he wins, he will certainly inspire other Republican governors to follow the trail he is blazing. It is already happening in states like New Jersey, Ohio, Indiana, Pennsylvania, and Florida.

Will this be good for public education? No. Will it be good for kids? No. Will it be good for America? No.

The highest performing nation in the world is Finland, which is 100 percent unionized. Somehow, its teachers and policymakers have been able to work together to create a great school system. Finland gives no standardized tests at all until seniors apply to college. It places its bets on recruiting, supporting and retaining teachers. Teaching is a highly respected, highly prestigious profession. Students clamor to become teachers, and once in, they don't leave. In contrast, teachers in the U.S. are treated so poorly, get so little respect and so little support that 50 percent leave teaching within their first five years on the job.

We need a first-class education system. We need to stop demonizing teachers. We need to stop the destructive tactics that hurt kids, undermine education, and destroy the morale of dedicated educators.

This is pure power politics that is no more connected to the fiscal crisis of the states than is the House Republican $61 billion cut in this year’s domestic spending to the federal government’s deficits and debt challenge. It’s the triumph of ideology and disinformation over problem solving.

The question is not whether Gov. Scott Walker's actions will "embolden" other governors, but whether the leadership of public employee unions elsewhere will get it into their heads that their members work for the public and that taxpayers who pay government workers' salaries are hard-pressed. Givebacks can begin with the perks full-time state-supported union bosses enjoy. Governors should make those items and their costs public.

One thing governors should not do is appear to be anti-teacher, anti-police and firefighter, anti-hospital worker, anti-hospital worker, or anti-anything else. If they take their case directly to the public and restrict their criticisms to the unions' leadership, they will find much support even among many of the union rank and file. After all, these people also pay the higher taxes that fund the benefits in question.

Let's see, was Green Bay trying to defeat Pittsburgh in the Super Bowl? Was the United States trying to defeat the Nazis in World War II?

Is there really any doubt about what Govs. Kasich and Walker are trying to do? In Walker's case he already had the unions agree to his financial terms. The ONLY thing they are fighting over is whether workers will continue to have traditional collective bargaining rights.

Isn't it pretty clear that the issue is that he wants to destroy the power of public sector unions. This is what he has said. Is there any reason to believe that he has any other motive?

The case against public sector unions is a very compelling one, as law professor Stephen Bainbridge points out. Considering Bainbridge's apt points, considering the fiscal crisis in which many states find themselves, and considering the generally antiquated and economically antediluvian nature of public sector unions, the actions being taken by Gov. Scott Walker and Wisconsin Republicans are entirely appropriate. Democrats and their labor union allies may call all of this "union-busting," but in fact, it is a recognition of economic and fiscal realities, and an effort to adapt economic and fiscal policy to present-day demands.

The clear evidence is that union bargaining rights are one issue; state budget problems are another. It should be possible for a smart and reasonable governor to get public employees to go along with sharing in benefit contributions like most other workers (even though comparably trained private sector workers tend to earn more than public sector workers).

Of course, to do so would take time; would involve more effort than getting a compliant legislature of the governor's party to go along; and perhaps most important, would raise the issue of tax breaks for companies and wealthy individuals. Certainly, a union being asked to pitch in would insist that others pitch in, as well. In Wisconsin, the governor's rushed-through tax breaks contributed importantly to the state's current budget problems. That's got to be a big reason why Wisconsin's governor doesn't want to engage in collective bargaining.

Gov. Walker's refusal to budge from his blatantly political attack on an opposing organization is losing him the support of Wisconsin people.

People in general may well believe that public workers should accept wage freezes and contribute more to benefits in the current crisis - as indeed they are doing, and in Wisconsin the targeted workers have accepted ALL the budgetary demands. But Americans know an unfair political vendetta against citizen organizations when they see it. Most Americans understand that as a threat to democracy.

Before we decide that GOP governors and legislators in general are going to follow Walker's lead, let's see how the Wisconsin story ends. Perhaps moderate-minded Republicans in the legislature will find a compromise after all. Deal honestly with the budget issues and get rid of the vindictive union busting. We know it is not a principled Walker stand against public sector unions, because he is trying to bust ONLY the unions that did not endorse him. That is authoritarianism. It is costly to Wisconsin's economy and to the decency of its public sphere.

Libyan strongman Muammar Qadhafi appeared on state television early Tuesday to prove he had not fled the country, as the opposition seemed to seize control in some areas and soldiers and government officials resigned in outrage over attacks on civilians.

What leverage does the U.S. have to quell the violence? And what lessons, if any, do recent events in Egypt offer about a potential Qadhafi departure?

Recent events have prompted speculation regarding Qadhafi's ability to stay in power. While it is likely that he will eventually be forced to step down, we can expect that the Qadhafi family will not go quietly. Saif's remarks on national television, the hiring of outside nation mercenaries and the use of air power are recently are further proof of this.

This puts the administration in a tenuous situation, as U.S. foreign policy will do little or nothing to persuade Qadhafi to succumb to any pressures to resign. There is simply too much at stake for the Qadhafi family and their long term legacy. Libya sits on one of the largest oil and gas beds in all of Africa, making it one of the most influential countries in Africa with one of the richest sovereign wealth funds in the world.

Furthermore, Libya remains tightly controlled and closed from the West, making it difficult for media to operate and almost impossible for tourists and businessman to gain visas and access. Countries such as Italy, France and Spain, have a better shot at persuading Qadhafi to resign due to their high standing with the Libyan government and their partnership in Libyan oil concessions.

Throughout his 40 years of tyranny, Qadhafi has mocked U.S. foreign policy through his so-called giving up of weapons of mass destruction, the payment of millions of dollars of to the families of Lockerbie bombing victims and most recently the release of Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi. He even mocked the U.S. during his trip to the UN General assembly with his huge entourage and Bedouin-tented like party in New Jersey.

Qadhafi's attempts over the past few years to recast his global image as one of compassion and peace, are proved worthless fallacies by the events of the last few days.

And while many are looking for comparisons, this revolt is different than the one in Egypt. Egypt was based on peaceful revolt and even though Mubarak was corrupt, he was not willing to kill his people to keep his power. In Libya, we are witnessing a civil war of sorts where the people are likely to shed blood for change.

As government air strikes rain down on protesters and mercenaries continue to kill, the world is once again reminded that Qadhafi should be included in the same category with evil dictators such as Saddam Hussein and Kim Jong Ill. It is also clear that Qadhafi, his son and the people of Libya will fight each other to the death to either hold power or to ensure the regime changes in the coming days regardless of the world's plea.

For decades now, Qadhafi has been an erratic embarrassment and his regime an outrage. What has troubled me, all these years, was the way his diplomats and others would feign respect - as if the emperor was, indeed, clothed in the finest of robes - instead of being the bizarre character they knew he was. (Who can forget the introduction he received at last year's UN, where he was called "the King of Kings"?)

In the last decade, Bush and Qadhafi formed a bond, of sorts. The Colonel secured a post 9/11 pass and Bush got his only "victory" in the "war on terror". All that is now history.

The diplomats are jumping ship, and telling us all that they now know what we knew all along. With the "mystique" of "Brother Colonel" shattered, can brute mercenary force buy this regime time? Maybe for a time, but how many will die and how much suffering before he goes for good?

Muammar Qadhafi, dubbed the “Mad Clown of Tripoli” by former President Ronald Reagan, has been in power for 42 years. Over those years, this dangerous and eccentric Libyan dictator has been involved in the financing of terror groups, the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, the bombing of Western aircraft, and the overall destabilization of the Middle East. It is for these reasons, among others, that Western leaders are generally happy to see him go.

The people of Libya want to see him go for other reasons. As human rights watchdog Freedom House notes, “due to the authoritarian nature of the Libyan regime, men and women have no political or civic rights outside those sanctioned by the state. Political parties are banned and membership in such entities is punishable by death. Anyone trying to engage in political or civic activity is liable to severe penalties including arrest, detention, and possible torture.” It comes as no surprise that the Libyan people have embraced the revolutionary contagion that is sweeping the Middle East.

The Libyans first began their revolt in Benghazi, the country’s second largest city. This was significant because Libya’s East, represented by Benghazi, has long chafed under Qadhafi rule. Apart from this regional and tribal distinction, the city is also viewed as the country’s intellectual center and a political weathervane. From student protests to Islamist insurrections, Benghazi has always been at the center of trouble for Qadhafi's regime. From Benghazi, the protests quickly spread to the countryside and to Tripoli.

The regime is now reportedly firing upon civilians with warships and missiles. Anti-government forces, however, have battled back. They have reportedly captured some of the state’s weaponry. Meanwhile, the strongman and his son, Seif al-Islam, have vowed to fight to the end. This is civil war.

The White House, for its part, has been conspicuously quiet on the fate of Libya. Compared to the regular (and often conflicting) statements during the Egypt crisis, President Obama and his team have said precious little. This silence is hard to understand, now that Qadhafi is openly committing war crimes.

To be sure, one concern is the security of the country’s considerable oil reserves and its future oil production. The price of gas has reached levels not seen since 2008, stemming from the Libya crisis.

There is also the question of stability after Qadhafi is gone. There are precious few functioning institutions in Libya. Nearly everything was tightly controlled by Qadhafi and his clique. Unlike in Egypt, where the military was prepared to step in, there appears to be a vacuum waiting the fall of Qadhafi. It is unclear if the dissident groups and reform factions are prepared to step forward in a meaningful way.

Another concern, not yet covered by the media, is the potential rise of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group. This affiliate of Al Qaeda has now seen dozens if not hundreds of cadres freed from jail in Benghazi. The LIFG, at one point, represented a significant core of the larger Al Qaeda network. The lack of media coverage makes this difficult to determine this group is active in the current unrest.

America has important interests in Libya. However, at this moment, we have very little leverage. Ironically, the best option may be to exert influence with our European allies that maintained economic ties with Libya, even when we counseled against them. The question now is how much leverage they have, and whether they seek American guidance, given the friction over Libya in the past, and our relative weakness on the world stage at present.

All illusions of the gentler, kinder Qadhafi should be dispelled by the events of the past few days as loyalists have engaged in a bloody suppression of the demonstrators. United States condemnation, swift and unequivocal - including asylum for their top diplomats abroad who have spoken out against the regime - as well as support for a democratic transition to government, should be forthcoming. Qadhafi may not realize it, but it is inevitable that the end of his reign is coming to the swift and sad end that marks the fall of all dictatorships.

If the United States can put human rights ahead of strategic and economic interests, there is a great deal they can do. As I said when the uprisings were taking place in Egypt, the violence will stop and the regime will fall only when those who are in the armed forces or those who are being paid to provide security no longer believe the regime is capable of making payroll.

It is more complicated in Libya since there are multiple layers of armed forces used to protect the regime, including some forces that are loyal to Qadhafi's different sons. Also, reports indicate the regime is hiring mercenaries from other African nations to do its dirty work. Either way, they need to be hit where the money hurts and that means the U.S. needs to use its leverage to convince partners in Europe and internationally to reject Libyan oil until human rights abuses end in Libya. This likely means hikes at the gas pump since Libya is 3 percent of the global oil output, but it is the right thing to do and it needed to happen yesterday.

We must also remember that the eyes of the world are on Washington and the decisions made here will be remembered in the Arab world. If we stand by as Qadhafi cracks down and do nothing, the people won't forget it. However, if we do intervene (and we should) the people will also not forget it the next time we fail to say anything about massive Israel human rights abuses against Palestinians. We can't dismiss the importance of Palestine and the impact that issue has had regionally.

The underlying problem beneath all of this, of course, is Washington's selective criticism of human rights violations. So long as that doesn't change, even a new Arab world will look at us with skepticism and suspicion.

Stuart GottliebDirector of policy studies, the Jackson Institute for Global Affairs at Yale University :

If you want a peek at the messy underbrush of the Obama administration's consistent inconsistency in its foreign policy, the White House's disparate reaction to the violence in Libya versus the uprising in Egypt is a good place to start.

In the case of Egypt, after some awkward mixed signals, Obama publicly cajoled Hosni Mubarak, saying he "must" begin a transition from power "now." And that was in response to mass peaceful protests and little or no use of force by the government.

In Libya, Moammar Qadhafi has retaliated against street protests with live fire from hired mercenaries and strafing of city streets by military aircraft. Hundreds are reported dead.

The White House response? A Hillary Clinton admonition that "now is the time to stop this unacceptable bloodshed."

Where is the direct appeal from the president of the United States for a ruthless dictator -- and one with plenty of American blood on his hands -- to step down "now"?

So what that Egypt is an American longtime ally, and Libya, until recently, a longtime nemesis? Ought we really reserve our harshest critiques and our most fervent promotion of values only for our friends?

How about this for a presidential statement: "Unless the Libyan government stops massacring its citizens in the street, the United States will do everything in its power to support the uprising."

I suspect the ayatollahs in Tehran might actually perk up and take notice of that one. As would the rest of the world.

Libyan dictator Moammar Qadhafi is on his way out; there will be a bloody end. In the past the United States propped up administrations around the world that represented “stability” no matter what the level of democracy they offered their citizens. The measure was, "how does stability prop up our economic interests"? The change in the world now is President Obama. He has elevated the democracy ingredient over economic interest to the discussion. This creates an environment of people taking more risks in repressive regimes. The president also holds the value to refrain from entering these conflicts when a clear path to democracy is not apparent.

In Tunisia and Egypt - like in other dictatorships under challenge in previous years - powerful forces inside the regime waver, frantically calculating who they think will win in the end. Qaddafi's brutal use of force and appearance on TV are his signals to the waverers that he's not going anywhere.

Maybe the U.S. shouldn't intervene at all, but if it did, it could probably make a huge difference. The most obvious way: the U.S. could declare that it will prevent Qaddafi from massacring the rebels and protesters in eastern Libya, starting by clearing the skies of Qaddafi's air force. That would be a clear signal to waverers across Libya that Qaddafi cannot win. It would make that a self-fulfilling prophecy, hopefully with as little further bloodshed as possible

One of the problems of being a dictator is you get used to a certain lifestyle, and you want to be able to maintain that lifestyle. No dictator wants to wind up like Mussolini or Hussein. However, living like Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, moving your family from country to country and winding up in Panama, is equally less appealing. Without exit options, Qadhafi has no reason but to fight to try to keep himself in power. Mubarak's departure was easier because they would be welcomed by Western nations and Middle Eastern nations if Egypt became too hostile to him and his family.

For a peaceful exit, Qadhafi has to be assured of being able to keep a portion of his misbegotten wealth and having a place to literally pitch his tent. I doubt any Western country would be willing to do that, and any other country that would risks becoming an international pariah.

The U.S. was somewhat conflicted in the early days of the Egyptian uprising since Hosni Mubarak, while a problematic autocrat, had been a long-standing U.S. ally. The administration should have no such concerns about the Qadhafi regime, which has been both autocratic and a long-standing thorn in the side of the U.S. The Obama administration should loudly encourage a peaceful transition to a democratic government, while at the same time sending quiet but firm diplomatic signals for Qadhafi to leave the country.

The United States has almost no leverage unless it wishes to try to mobilize NATO to establish a no-fly zone or organize some sort of humanitarian intervention. I doubt anyone in the administration could find the interest, resources, or ethical will to try to craft this kind of policy.

There are no real lessons from Egypt that would apply to Qadhaffi and Libya. Whether Qadhaffi can withstand the domestic and international pressures will depend on tribal alliances and his capacity to deploy brute force against his population. He has no country that would offer him sanctuary. He and his family have nowhere to go but to the gallows if his regime falls.

Compared to Qadhafi, Mubarak was Abraham Lincoln. It's hard not to cheerleader for the end of Moammar's regime.

That said, the lack of civil institutions in Libya is even more severe than in Egypt.

All that we know for sure is that if U.S. wants to protect its interests in the region and make a positive contribution to seeing liberty and economic freedom take root in the Middle East now is not the time for retrenching American power - in particular dialing down our capacity to project force in uncertain times seems to complete prescription for disaster.

The United States has considerable leverage because we could strike and seriously degrade Libyan military assets. We certainly could keep their aircraft out of the sky. If the bloodbath continues we could seek a UN no-fly resolution and NATO air forces could make a difference, so that option bears serious consideration. It has nothing to do with U.S. regional interests or strategy, but when a humanitarian option exists it should be undertaken.

When trying to project staying power, taping a 30 second rambling monologue in a car on the way somewhere (airport? mercenary reception? mental institution?) is not the way to go.

Claiming that Libya will be plunged into civil war when the population is largely united against you and you have to import African mercenaries to kill your own people is also not the way to go.

Qadhafi's grip on power is tenuous at best, as more and more of his own inner circle continues to abandon him. He has resorted to using foreign fighters to kill his own people while losing the support of several important eastern tribes that have been crucial to his political longevity. It is likely only a matter of time until he is either forced out or killed. In the meantime, reports indicate that he has no qualms about slaughtering his own people at protests and funerals.

Publicly, the United States rightly stayed out of the revolutions in Tunisia and Egypt. That old canard of an American-Zionist conspiracy to dominate Muslim nations is still strong on the Arab street and our recent history in Iraq and Afghanistan does not help that narrative. Qadhafi has already tried to perpetuate this myth in Libya and American intervention, even verbally, will not help the cause of those who have risen up because of their own circumstances and not because of foreign involvement.

The only option to consider is a concerted effort by the United Nations, led by the European Union and especially Italy, to establish a no-fly zone over Libya to prevent Qadhafi's forces from slaughtering their own people from the air. It would show good will toward the protesters while likely hastening Qadhafi's departure.

Unfortunately, the oil well that is Libya will likely prevent the Europeans from any direct involvement for fear of alienating an unstable dictator who still has an outside chance of controlling the spigot for the foreseeable future.

What leverage? The Libyans seem to hold all the trump cards, especially if they threaten to destroy their oil producing facilities. Like in Egypt, the U.S. needs to sit this one out and let events take their natural course.

Obama is not constrained by an ally in Libya. Qadhafi is and has always been a thug and an enemy to the United States. We have no direct leverage with him. But we could throw our support behind the people of Libya. We could bring the issue to the Security Council - and wouldn't China's response be interesting? We could get them thrown off of the Human Rights Council.

Obama's equivocating over Egypt was explicable. It is not in Libya. His silence in inexplicable and inexcusable.

Your leadership is in trouble when ambassadors and cabinet officials resign and your pilots move military planes to other countries. Even with the harsh crackdown, it is hard to imagine Qadhafi lasting much longer.

Change is inevitable. Embrace it, or be on the wrong side of history. But as in Egypt, this is homegrown and cannot be and is not “directed” by the U.S. There’s a whole generation of foreign policy folks who need to learn these lessons.

I'm not conversant at all in the political maneuverings of Qadhafi's cabinet or government or able to speak to who might emerge as opposition leaders or future leaders in Libya, whether civilian or military or exile. But, by way of answering today's query, I would like to point Arena readers to Anne Applebaum's recent Slate piece, "Every Revolution is Different." Applebaum argues that Europe 1848, not Europe 1989, is the more likely model for revolutions sweeping the Middle East: A "change of political system might take a very long time, and it might not come about through popular revolution at all ... Television creates the illusion of a linear narrative and gives events the semblance of a beginning, a middle, and an end. Real life is never like that; 1848 wasn't like that. It's useful to ponder the messiness of history from time to time, because it reminds us that the present is really no different."

Egypt, Libya, and other nations must now forge a new history. And from where I sit, it's not easy to predict whether that history will lead to Islamist governance, nationalist violence or liberal democracy.

Tim Gorman (guest)
KS:

When unions can elect those who control their wages and benefits an extremely unhealthy, incestuous relationship ensues. Conflict of interest issues become a major problem. This is exactly the case today with public sector unions. Gov. Walker isn't assaulting collective bargaining, he is assaulting the incestuous relationship between the public sector unions and the supervisors they help elect. Is it any wonder the unions are against this?

GEORGE TAYLOR (guest)
DC:

Walker is looking out for the taxpayers. The state is broke. The greedy union would have no problem making cash-strapped voters dig deeper into their pockets to fund this shakedown. Wisconsin taxpayers pay more per pupil than any other Midwest state but gets horrible results for such a hefty investment. Teachers should be paid based upon their merits. Who wouldn't want to get paid based upon service time and not results.? Unions equal scam.

James Willis (guest)
CA:

It seems that Arizona Rep. Daniel Patterson, the DNC and President Obama's Organinzing for America learned nothing from the tragedy in Tucson. Just take a look at the disgusting signs carried by the union protesters that portray Gov. Walker as Hitler and worse, show his picture with rifle crosshairs on his face and the words "RELOAD" and "REPEAL WALKER". Dem leaders need to stop inciting violence against elected officials.

Nick Wilson (guest)
TX:

Conflating the actions of Gov. Walker with the union busting tactics of the past (unions forceably broken up and members prosecuted) is as absurd as claiming protests backed by the president to protect status quo government worker pensions is equivalent to the anti-government Middle East democracy movement. Conflating this to the civil rights movement is beyond insulting to the civil rights movement. There's no justice in bankruptcy.

Tom Genin (guest)
CT:

Oh Jeffrey, you do wax poetic. Mr. Stewart, it takes a lot of gall to call government worker collective bargaining a pillar of democracy, when the defenders of that so-called pillar flee to stop democracy from taking place. Voters voted, and Democrat representatives aren't representing. You have it all wrong, as the People do have a say in their economic and political future, and their votes said, "ENOUGH!"

More POLITICO Arena

About the Arena

The Arena is a cross-party, cross-discipline forum for intelligent and lively conversation about political and policy issues. Contributors have been selected by POLITICO staff and editors. David Mark, Arena's moderator, is a Senior Editor at POLITICO. Each morning, POLITICO sends a question based on that day's news to all contributors.